Another Take on the Logic of the Accusations Against Judge Roy Moore

12
Share

Mark Levin brought some logic of all the happenstance surrounding the Judge Moore crisis and it might get people thinking.

The Washington Post reported that they happened upon the information that four women said they dated Moore while they were underage.

“While reporting a story in Alabama about supporters of Moore’s Senate campaign, a Post reporter heard that Moore allegedly had sought relationships with teenage girls. Over the ensuing three weeks, two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying they thought it was important for people to know about their interactions with Moore. The women say they don’t know one another.”

Mark Levin asked his audience how WaPo knew there were four women and how to contact them. A WaPo reporter happens to be in Alabama talking to Roy Moore supporters, happens to hear something no one has reported in 38 years even while Moore was running for office – he was dating teen girls, underage girls? Four of them.

Now, the four girls do not know each other, they have never met. Yet the person who the WaPo reporter happened to run into and speak to, the person who supposedly told the reporter the story about the four girls, happened to know all four girls and how to contact them?

What bothers me is why has Moore had no blemishes since? He was a molester one time and dated three young girls, but never strayed before or since?

Also troublesome is the RINOs demanding he resign, including Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell who paid millions to make certain Moore did not win the primary.

It’s also not unusual for Democrat operatives to falsely accuse Republicans of sexual molestation, though sometimes it is true. It also wouldn’t be surprising if some group organized to create this situation and feed it to the Bezos fake newspaper of record. It’s possible.

Share

12 COMMENTS

  1. One odd detail with the 14 yr. old makes no sense whatsoever. Evidently the mother went in for a hearing and we are suppose to believe that a 14yr old needed WATCHING. I’ve never heard that someone of that age would need watching by anyone. That alone should cause suspicion of the entire episode.

  2. The panel on Hannity was obviously prejudice. Greg Jarret, who used to be on a Wichita station, showed his true colors. He despises Judge Moore because of his stance on certain social issues. There are many who fully believe many Supreme Court decisions are invalid. When it comes to Geraldo he is well known where he stands. The woman on the panel wants to believe the women, But, she equated all four girls as giving the same testimony which is Not the case. In fact, the other girls were more exculpatory.

    All three seemed to believe that Moore’s interview was damning. If I was on a jury I would find the opposite, so I was utterly shocked to hear all three conclude his guilt.

    • Yes on that show guilty until proven innocent was applied. There must be huge pressure at Fox to hurt Moore given the Hannity show last night. He’ll lose some viewers over it. Jarret lost credibility by insisting Moore is guilty. It was a calculated and dishonest move. Jarret was recently arrested for intoxication and scuffled with police while cursing them. But he shows intolerance due to someone merely accused.

      • I wasn’t aware of that about Jarret. The video is hilarious. You could tell his outpouring of anger about Moore and his stance on homosexual marriage, which, by itself is an oxymoron.

        The Supreme Court should Never have even granted certiorari in that case; simply because the State inserted itself for the sole purpose of preventing interracial marriage and created the license to enforce it. By rights, in conjunction with Dread Scott, the Court should have dissolved the State’s authority in these matters. The States reverted to using the “blood test” requirement as a basis for maintaining their control, which now has been discredited. There is no current reason for the State to be involved in what is a religious institution.

  3. Give it time. The Democrats paid millions, and were paid millions, re the dossier and Uranium One. Corruption is fairly complete in politics. People are taken down in all kinds of ways. If Moore did what he is accused of, that’s one thing. All these years later? Suddenly four? Let’s wait and see. Innocent. He surely has not been proven guilty.

    • This appears to be another attempt to overturn an election, a primary election, so of course the republican leaders rally around it. How gullible republican voters are to tolerate these people taking over the party and subverting the agenda.

  4. Makes no sense. Judge Moore was more controversial several years ago on the Alabama Supreme Court. Why weren’t these allegations used to stop him then? That is a position that affects regular people a LOT more than a Senator. Why not in the primary ? I’m sorry, but this whole thing doesn’t pass the smell test. The proof? McConnell and others demanding Moore step aside now, … because the seriousness of the charge… I hope enough Alabamans can see this crap for what it is.

  5. An ABC affiliate where Strange won could not find a single person who believe the Washington Post. The Paper had already taken a purely political position when deciding to do whatever necessary to stop Trump during the election, facts notwithstanding.

    It wouldn’t surprise me that the 14 yr. old did have that happen, But done by someone else. This wouldn’t be the first time the guilt was planted on someone else.

  6. Well what have we here……On Thursday November 10, members of the Senate voted to make sexual harassment prevention training a requirement for all “members, officers, employees, interns, and fellows of the Senate…………………………………………..but to the best of my understanding this little provision is still in place……………Congress exempted itself in 1995 from sexual harassment law and put in place special protections for itself if any of its members were accused of same including forcing the taxpayers to pay any settlements that were ultimately required if said accusers ultimately proved their cases and even in that instance the identity of the guilty party was withheld from the public………how nice it must be to make special laws for yourselves !!!!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply to S. Noble Cancel reply